Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:53:58.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of summerform pear psylla (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) to male- and female-produced odors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Christelle Guédot ,
David R. Horton  and
Peter J. Landolt
Christelle Guédot*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 5230 Konnowac Pass Road, Wapato, Washington 98951, United States of America
David R. Horton
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 5230 Konnowac Pass Road, Wapato, Washington 98951, United States of America
Peter J. Landolt
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 5230 Konnowac Pass Road, Wapato, Washington 98951, United States of America
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: christelle.guedot@ars.usda.gov).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examined the role of chemical signals in sex attraction of pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola (Förster), assessing the response of summerform male and female psyllids to male- and female-produced volatile chemicals. Male psyllids were attracted to odors from live females and pentane extracts of females. Extracts of females were as attractive to males as live females, suggesting that the female-produced volatile chemicals responsible for male attraction might be isolated by extracting females with pentane. Females were not attracted to odorants from live females and tended to avoid odorants from extracts of females. Furthermore, summerform males and females were not attracted or repelled by male-produced odorants from live males or extracts of males. Results of olfactometer assays using male summerform C. pyricola are consistent with results from earlier studies with the winterform morphotype of this species.

Résumé

Nous avons étudié le rôle des signaux chimiques impliqués dans l'attraction sexuelle chez le psylle du poirier, Cacopsylla pyricola (Förster) (Hemiptères : Psyllidae). La réponse des mâles et femelles de la forme d'été aux substances volatiles chimiques produites par les mâles et femelles a été évaluée. Les psylles mâles sont attirés par les odeurs de femelles vivantes et d'extraits de femelles avec du pentane. Les extraits de femelles attirent les mâles tout autant que les femelles vivantes, ce qui suggère que les substances volatiles chimiques produites par les femelles et qui attirent les males peuvent être isolées lors de l'extraction des femelles avec du pentane. Les femelles ne sont pas attirées par les odeurs de femelles vivantes et ont tendance à éviter les substances odorantes provenant des extraits de femelles. De plus, les mâles et femelles de la forme d'été ne sont ni attirés ni repoussés par les substances odorantes produites par les mâles vivants ou les extraits de mâles. Les résultats des expériences sur les mâles C. pyricola de la forme d'été avec un olfactomètre sont en accord avec les résultats d'études antérieures obtenus avec la forme hivernante de cette espèce.

Type
Behavior & Ecology
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 143 , Issue 3 , June 2011 , pp. 245 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, J.Borg-Karlson, A.-K.Wiklund, C. 2003. Antiaphrodisiacs in pierid butterflies: a theme with variation! Journal of Chemical Ecology, 29: 1489–1499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R.L. 2008. Chemical and behavioral ecology of the pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola Förster (Hemiptera: Psyllidae). M.S. thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.Google Scholar
Brown, R.L.Landolt, P.J.Horton, D.R.Zack, R.S. 2009. Attraction of Cacopsylla pyricola (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) to female psylla in pear orchards. Environmental Entomology, 38: 815–822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burts, E.C.Fischer, W.R. 1967. Mating behavior, egg production, and egg fertility in the pear psylla. Journal of Economic Entomology, 60: 1297–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guédot, C.Horton, D.R.Landolt, P.J. 2009a. Attraction of male winterform pear psylla to female-produced volatiles and to female extracts and evidence of male, male repellency. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 130: 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guédot, C.Millar, J.G.Horton, D.R.Landolt, P.J. 2009b. Identification of a sex attractant pheromone for male winterform pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 35: 1437–1447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guédot, C.Horton, D.R.Landolt, P.J. 2010. Sex attraction in Bactericera cockerelli (Hemiptera: Triozidae). Environmental Entomology, 39: 1302–1308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillier, N.K.Vickers, N.J. 2004. The role of heliothine hairpencil compounds in female Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) behavior and male acceptance. Chemical Senses, 29: 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, D.R.Landolt, P.J. 2007. Attraction of male pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola, to female-infested pear shoots. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 123: 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, D.R.Lewis, T.M. 1995. Interplant movement by pear psylla (Homoptera: Psyllidae): effects of sex ratio and reproductive status. Journal of Insect Behavior, 8: 687–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, D.R.Guédot, C.Landolt, P.J. 2007. Diapause status of females affects attraction of male pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola, to volatiles from female-infested pear shoots. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 123: 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, D.R.Guédot, C.Landolt, P.J. 2008. Attraction of male summerform pear psylla to volatiles from female pear psylla: effects of female age, mating status, and presence of host plant. The Canadian Entomologist, 140: 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, R.W. 1993. Cuticular hydrocarbons and chemical communication. In Insects lipids: chemistry, biochemistry and biology. Edited by Stanley-Samuelson, D.W.Nelson, D.R.. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. pp.179–226.Google Scholar
Howard, R.W.Blomquist, G.J. 1982. Chemical ecology and biochemistry of insect hydrocarbons. Annual Review of Entomology, 27: 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, R.W.Blomquist, G.J. 2005. Ecological, behavioral, and biochemical aspects of insect hydrocarbons. Annual Review of Entomology, 50: 371–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirk, W.D.J.Hamilton, J.G.C. 2004. Evidence for a male-produced sex pheromone in the western flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 30: 167–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krysan, J.L. 1990. Laboratory study of mating behavior as related to diapause in overwintering Cacopsylla pyricola (Homoptera: Psyllidae). Environmental Entomology, 19: 551–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krysan, J.L.Higbee, B.S. 1990. Seasonality of mating and ovarian development in overwintering Cacopsylla pyricola (Homoptera: Psyllidae). Environmental Entomology, 19: 544–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landolt, P.J.Heath, R.R. 1990. Sexual role reversal in mate-finding strategies of the cabbage looper moth. Science (Washington, D.C.), 249: 1026–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leal, W.S.Kuwahara, S.Shi, X.Higuchi, H.Marino, C.E.B.Ono, M.Meinwald, J. 1998. Male-released sex pheromone of the stink bug Piezodorus hybneri. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 24: 1817–1829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockey, K.H. 1988. Lipids of the insect cuticle: origin, composition, and function. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology B Comparative Biochemistry, 89: 595–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, D.R. 1978. Long-chain methyl-branched hydrocarbons: occurrence, biosynthesis, and function. In Advances in insect physiology. Vol. 13. Edited by Treherne, J.E.. Academic Press Inc., London, United Kingdom. pp.1–33.Google Scholar
Oldfield, G.N. 1970. Diapause and polymorphism in California populations of Psylla pyricola (Homoptera: Psyllidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 63: 180–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percy, D.M.Taylor, G.S.Kennedy, M. 2006. Psyllid communication: acoustic diversity, mate recognition and phylogenetic signal. Invertebrate Systematics, 20: 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc 2002. SAS. Version 9.1 for Windows [computer program]. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Schulz, S.Estrada, C.Yildizhan, S.Boppré, M.Gilbert, L.E. 2008. An antiaphrodisiac in Heliconius melpomene butterflies. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 34: 82–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, T.L. 1998. Role of hydrocarbons in the recognition systems of insects. American Zoologist, 38: 394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slingerland, M.V. 1892. The pear-tree psylla. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 44: 161–186.Google Scholar
Soroker, V.Talebaev, S.Harari, A.R.Wesley, S.D. 2004. The role of chemical cues in host and mate location in the pear psylla Cacopsylla bidens (Homptera: Psyllidae). Journal of Insect Behavior, 17: 613–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroker, V.Fefer, D.Goldinberg, I.Litovshy, A.Gitgarts, L.Reneh, S. et al. 2010. Is the clue to low attractivity of the female winterform psylla hidden in her cuticle? 26th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Chemical Ecology, Tours, France, 31 July – 4 August 2010.Google Scholar
Tishechkin, D.Y. 2006. Vibratory communication in Psylloidea (Hemiptera). In Insect sounds and communication: physiology, behaviour, ecology and evolution. Edited by Drosopoulos, S.Claridge., M.F.. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp.357–363.Google Scholar
Wenninger, E.J.Stelinski, L.L.Hall, D.G. 2008. Behavioral evidence for a female-produced sex attractant in Diaphorina citri Kuwayama (Hemiptera: Psyllidae). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 128: 450–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertheim, B.van Baalen, E.-J.A.Dicke, M.Vet, L.E.M. 2005. Pheromone-mediated aggregation in nonsocial arthropods: an evolutionary ecological perspective. Annual Review of Entomology, 50: 321–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, T.T.Y.Madsen, H.F. 1967. Laboratory and field studies on the seasonal forms of pear psylla in northern California. Journal of Economic Entomology, 60: 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Q.E.Aldrich, J.R. 2003. Male-produced anti-sex pheromone in a plant bug. Naturwissenschaften, 90: 505–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar